I am writing in response to the statements made by Kevin McCloskey and a number of my colleagues as to whether or not we should have a vote of no confidence in president Cevallos.

Let me first say that I have the utmost respect for Kevin. I find in him a man of great intelligence, warmth, and dedication to Kutztown. He has served this institution for almost twenty years and has never avoided hard work or hard decisions. Our most recent contact before these emails was for “Asaro: Revolutionary Mexican Prints for the 21st Century.” Last semester, I promoted the exhibition in my Latin American history course. As a Latin American historian, I have a great appreciation for the context that created the revolutionary images Kevin included in the show. Suffice it to say, we are colleagues when it comes to our disciplines.

We fundamentally disagree on the issue of whether or not a vote of no confidence should even be held, however.

A primary concern expressed in the emails that I have seen so far regards the surreptitious and devious nature of the local union and its efforts. The claim is made that a call for a vote involves a disgruntled cabal of radicals and bomb throwers.

It is easy for me to understand how so many people can say they did not know about the problems cited in the email last week. When I was working my way through the probationary tenure track not that long ago, I was busy. I taught my 4-4 load and picked up overloads and summer courses that came my way. I was the advisor for Phi Alpha Theta. I worked on my scholarship and served on committees. Rarely, did I have time to read minutes of meetings or learn to understand what I considered the arcane content of the CBA, Meet & Discuss, or Representative Council. I was lucky if I read the Daily Brief.

One of the reasons that we started a website for the local was to place in the public domain all of our work. The website address is http://www.apscuf.com/kutztown. A cursory review of the home page will reveal a long list of reports, initiatives, and information. I would encourage the faculty to bookmark this website.

When I became the APSCUF-KU president, I made a conscious decision to get directly involved with other existing organizations that represented the faculty, particularly Chairnet and the University Senate. In these meetings, the union listened to the concerns expressed and served as an advocate for the faculty individually, by departments, and for the campus as a whole. In order to improve communications, there were many times when we sent documents directly to the faculty at large.

The guiding logic of these actions followed two concurrent paths: (1) address concerns through an existing process; (2) push as much information as possible out to the faculty.

Our treatment of the Commonalties Document is a case in point. When the faculty was finally informed that the academic portion of SAP (i.e., the Commonalities Document) was ready, both the Senate and local union leadership expressed serious concerns about a software system, Bill Bateman’s term was “Skynet,” dictating curriculum to the faculty. Because the administration had released the document so late, we scrambled to articulate the problems identified on an artificially short timeline. But we did do it. The report issued by the ad hoc committee is attached. We spoke to Dr. Jim Moran from the Chancellor’s office. We did all the right things without the benefit of adequate time. We cooperated with each other and with the university administration in good faith. One detail came out of these meetings that struck me almost immediately. Dr. Moran and our state leadership were confused about our concerns regarding Commonalities. Software patches were available to make SAP conform to local curriculum policies. Kutztown University had the option to purchase the software. In the beginning of 2007, Dr. Cevallos made it clear to me that he would not support that option. After months of work, we reached an impasse over a choice between local governance of curriculum and money. Money won.

Our treatment of the Academic Forum is a second case in point. During the Fall 2006 semester, the union raised concerns about the impact that the large class building would have on students and faculty. We issued the attached report and made it clear that we wanted to compromise on the issue, recognizing the reality of the building, but asserting our concerns for the academic integrity of the school. We held public meetings. Faculty representing a cross section of Senate, union, and other constituencies met with members of the board of trustees at a luncheon last spring. We were very candid and pointed in our remarks. Where has all that work led us? Where is the plan to mitigate the consequences of the Forum?

My point is this: We publicly addressed systemic problems that affect our students and the faculty. They affect the basic fabric of Kutztown.

We have attempted to resolve these issues with the powers that be in ways that were quiet and in-house.

President Cevallos’ 2007 performance review is a final example. Last year, the local unions, the borough council, and many other entities both on and off campus were invited to submit reports regarding the president’s job performance. In April 2007, I prepared one for APSCUF-KU. It consisted of a five-page summary of problems that we had identified. I included documents with the report. I asked Mike Gabriel to accompany me to a meeting with the chairman of the Kutztown Board of Trustees, Mr. Richard Orwig, Dr. Thomas Krapso, the PASSHE Vice Chancellor for Human Resources and Labor Relations, and other members of the KU board.

I also asked Mike Gabriel to sit with me for a reason. Between the two of us, we represented the Wiesenberger and Chambliss award winners for teaching and research in 2007. For all intents, we arguably represented the gold standard for faculty at Kutztown University according to the administration’s own measurement. I also asked Mike because I have always respected his sense of propriety and his dedication to our school.

On the first page of the 30 April 2007 report, a summary paragraph concluded:

“Presently, there is significant support for a vote of no confidence against the president.”

What we did was give a voice to profound faculty concerns regarding fundamental and systemic problems directly affecting Kutztown. We attempted to do so in a closed door meeting with highly placed officials within our university and the state system. We did so after a series of well-documented and public efforts.

At the time, I understood the risks of being the messenger who delivered these problems to management’s doorstep. I had been warned by senior colleagues about the consequences of speaking out. These warnings resonated in particular since, at the time, I was applying for promotion. History has a long record of what happens to whistle-blowers.

We presented the report. What was the result?

Nothing.

How many different times and ways do we have to approach the same problems before it is time to recognize that the methods do not work? When is the ideal time to introduce the idea of a vote of no confidence?

We have not voted. What we are asking for is a discussion. We have that. Then, the faculty in Representative Council will decide what to do on 14 February. Then, if Rep. Council decides, we will vote as a faculty.

Lastly, if the faculty decide to use any of these votes as a referendum on the local, so be it. We will abide by what our membership decides.

Mike Gambone
APSCUF-KU